|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Noah's Flood
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
That was, of course, a very brief summary of the very much more complex history of dead horses. And, glossed over a couple of points of discussion that exist within the relevant academic disciplines.
Horses, though not the more modern species of Equus, first appeared when continental drift hadn't seperated land masses enough for "North America" and "Asia" to be entirely meaningful concepts as seperate land masses. It does appear that the first Equus species evolved in what is now North America, and relatively rapidly spread into Asia and beyond. It's not quite clear whether Equus ferus (wild horse, of which Equus ferus caballas is the sub species of domestic horse) and Equus scotti (the most recent 'native' North American horse) were the same species or seperate species which evolved from a common (probably North American) ancestor and were then seperated by the Bering Strait as Asia and America drifted apart. The sporadic opening and closing of the Bering land bridge during interglacial cycles was certainly enough to allow human expansion from Asia to the Americas, but doesn't seem to have done much to allow significant wildlife mixing which is generally taken to mean the bridge wasn't a wide strip of dry land with plentiful vegetation that made it attractive for browsers (like horses) or their preditors, but could have been good for humans with boats and fishing technology to cross.
The extinction of horses in North America is approximately coincident with the arrival of humans. It's also coincident with the extinction of other animals; mastodon, sabre tooth cats, mammoth, giant elk etc in both North America and Eurasia. That could have been the result of human hunting pressure, although there's no evidence of large scale horse hunting (unlike mastodon where we have known kill sites). It could have been climate change linked, or the result of diseases introduced by migrating humans and other animals as conditions changed. It's interesting that the enormous herds of Equus that fossil evidence indicates were common throughout North America, Eurasia and Africa (easily matching, if not exceeding, the more modern bison or wildebeest herds) all disappeared at about the same time - Equus ferus wasn't that far off being extinct in Eurasia at the time Equus scotti did become extinct in North America. The fossil record only really starts to show a recovery in horse numbers in Asia in relatively recent times (5-6 thousand years ago) at what seems to be the same time as humans started to domesticate them.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
quote:
Originally posted by Petaflop:
Why should anyone believe in a God who can come up with no better solution to the state of the world than drowning it or condemning most of it to eternal punishment? Such a God must be too stupid or too weak or too malevolent to come up with a better solution.
What would your solution have been?
Restorative justice. A justice which can unwrong a wrong is greater than a justice which can punish it. A God who can unwrong a wrong, heal the damage to both the sinner and their victim, raise the dead, is greater than one who can merely punish it.
quote:
His worked. Your existance is testimony to that.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
I withdraw my previous post. Even if scientists were to strictly adhere to the most careful standards of reasoning and communication, our audience will never be able to tell a well constructed argument from a random assertion.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
It was, as you say, a brief summary. It was more a response to the whole "How do you explain THIS?" thing. It can be explained in a way which is supported by scientific evidence, and which doesn't rely on the explanation of a global flood.
Moreover, from the flood believer perspective, it's a bit silly to pick on one species as though it proves the whole thing. If this view is right, and horses were wiped out by a flood, reappeared in the Middle East when they came off the ark, and then got spread around the world... then you'd expect that to happen to every other species as well. We should have kangaroos and platypuses and lemurs in the Middle East, or at least some evidence that they've been there at some point. We should find that biological diversity decreases the further you get from wherever it was that the ark landed as all the species in the world work their way outwards from this point.
I have wondered if the rise of sea levels as we came into this interglacial period could have gone down in folk memory as a great flood of some kind, or if it was just too long ago and too gradual. I don't know. It certainly didn't cover the whole world with water.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Petaflop:
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
quote:
Originally posted by Petaflop:
Why should anyone believe in a God who can come up with no better solution to the state of the world than drowning it or condemning most of it to eternal punishment? Such a God must be too stupid or too weak or too malevolent to come up with a better solution.
What would your solution have been?
Restorative justice. A justice which can unwrong a wrong is greater than a justice which can punish it. A God who can unwrong a wrong, heal the damage to both the sinner and their victim, raise the dead, is greater than one who can merely punish it.
Yeah, I mean, why didn't God send Jesus and the Spirit and speaking in tongues before the flood and make us all perfect then? Like totally.
(Tangent: this thread reeks of Sci-fi or some other strange confabulation)
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
...What difference does any option make to the meaning of the text?
Probably none. Hence, nails to masts become redundant.
If all the judgements & works of God reported in the text are just stories, they didn't really happen then why should anyone believe in a God who doesn't actually do what he talks about?
Different question you're asking there.
How bout my question. Does it change the meaning of the text or not?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Petaflop:
Restorative justice. A justice which can unwrong a wrong is greater than a justice which can punish it. A God who can unwrong a wrong, heal the damage to both the sinner and their victim, raise the dead, is greater than one who can merely punish it.
But that only works if the people are willing.
The fact that most people aren't willing to obey the gospel fdirective to be born again today makes it easy to believe that those people then would not have been willing.
They had had contact with God's people, obviously chose to find fault with Noah's message of warning and continued "continually evil".
The people of Nineveh in Jonah's time are witness against these people, they repented when threatened with destruction. They are also witness against those who reject restorative justice today.
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
...How bout my question. Does it change the meaning of the text or not?
It doesn't change the meaning of the words to us, but it does change theior effect on people since then if they believe God actually blesses the good and destroys the evil, rather than just deliver moral tales.
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
It doesn't change the meaning of the words to us, but it does change theior effect on people since then if they believe God actually blesses the good and destroys the evil, rather than just deliver moral tales.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that God blesses the obedient and destroys the disobedient? Following God's (alleged) orders seems to be the sole criterion for goodness as you've formulated it.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
[QUOTE]..Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that God blesses the obedient and destroys the disobedient?
OK, if you like.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Following God's (alleged) orders seems to be the sole criterion for goodness as you've formulated it.
Which orders do you refer to?
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
To those that entertain the idea that the flood never actually happened but who believe the bible is true... what do you make of this:
"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." (2 Peter 3:5-7)
What is this "fire"?
Is this an idle warning?
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
What is this "fire"?
Is this an idle warning?
More like spin control over the apparent delay in the Second Coming. The whole passage can essentially be reduced to "sure they're scoffing at us now, but just wait 'til Jesus gets back! Then they'll be sorry, oh yes, so very, very sorry!"
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amarante
Apprentice
# 15573
|
Posted
The story of a flood pre-dates the written Book of Genesis. It circulated in Abraham's country of Mesopotamia in the 2nd millennium BC. This record is preserved in the famous epic of Gilgamesh and tells of the building of a vessel in which to save all human and animal life in a flood to be sent by the gods (plural). warning of the flood was given to a good servant by the deity, Ea, who joked about the coming of a rich harvest-tide bringing the people wheat in torrents.
The story is followed closely in Genesis which refers to the grounding of the vessel on a mountain, the sending out of birds, and the sacrifices made upon leaving the vessel.
Genesis makes no mention of course to the Mother Goddess who wept that her people, who she brought forth, now floated on the waters like the spawn of fish. This story was 'history' possibly handed down in the oral tradition for centuries, and Genesis faithfully recorded it. It was known also to other nations including the Greeks.
Posts: 19 | From: Poole - Dorset | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
To what Amarante says, I'd suggest that a large flood in the vicinity of Mesopotamia (so glad that's in spellcheck!) in the pre-literate past would be a reasonable source for Flood stories in the ancient world. Certainly, we know that the Greeks were fond of retelling stories they'd picked up elsewhere.
--------------------
Siegfried
Life is just a bowl of cherries!
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I have wondered if the rise of sea levels as we came into this interglacial period could have gone down in folk memory as a great flood of some kind, or if it was just too long ago and too gradual. I don't know. It certainly didn't cover the whole world with water.
I have always assumed this was the case. The current interglacial dates from about 10000 years ago, not very long before the formation of the first cities of which we have evidence (the first large-scale settlement at Jericho dates from 8000 BCE - it was sufficiently city-like to have a 7m high tower and several shrines. Presumably, that implies some sort of religious culture, which, in the presumed absence of writing, must have been transmitted orally. I don't find it at all unlikely that stories could be preserved down that sort of length of time.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell
It's interesting that the enormous herds of Equus that fossil evidence indicates were common throughout North America, Eurasia and Africa (easily matching, if not exceeding, the more modern bison or wildebeest herds) all disappeared at about the same time - Equus ferus wasn't that far off being extinct in Eurasia at the time Equus scotti did become extinct in North America. The fossil record only really starts to show a recovery in horse numbers in Asia in relatively recent times (5-6 thousand years ago) at what seems to be the same time as humans started to domesticate them.
DNA studies have shown that all modern horses, including the wild ones, are descended from domesticated horses.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
DNA studies have shown that all modern horses, including the wild ones, are descended from domesticated horses.
Moo
That depends on how widely or narrowly you define "horses".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
DNA studies have shown that all modern horses, including the wild ones, are descended from domesticated horses.
It isn't unusual that domestication is bad news for the wild ancestor. Domestic cattle are descended from wild aurochs, now extinct. Mouflon, the ancestor of domestic sheep, are verging on endangered. Wild goats are also vulnerable.
It's probably that domestic animals, at least initially, occupied the same ecological niche as their wild relatives but enjoyed human protection from predation. Plus, they would have interbred with wild populations diluting the purely wild gene pool. Having people look after you and keep the wolves at bay is a survival advantage, and evolution by (almost) natural selection does the rest eliminating the 'weaker' wild populations.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
His worked. Your existance is testimony to that.
Can I interest you in some shark repellant? Works great. The fact that I use it daily and have never been attacked by a shark is testimony to that.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
No. 1 seems somewhat unlikely
Height of Mt Everest c. 29000ft
Assumption (admitted) average height of global landmass above sea level - say 4000ft
70% of earth's surface is water (yes I know - including lakes which aren't necessarily at sea level)
in order for the rain to cover the mountain tops in 40 days and nights
29000 minus 4000 = 25000 ft of water over 30% and 29000 ft over 70% of the earth
{(25 x 3) + (29 x 7)} / 10 = 27.8
27800 ft = 333,600 inches in total
333,600/40 = 8340 inches daily
8340/24 = 347.5 inches hourly
347.5/60 = 5.79 inches per minute, everywhere on the earth's surface - continuously - for 40 days and forty nights.
One inch of rain in every 10.4 seconds.
Lots of assumptions but hey do your own figures - it's still a heck of a storm
WEATHER RECORDS
Greatest rainfall in a day: 73.62 inches (RØunion, Indian Ocean; March 15, 1952)
(only 8266.38 inches and a further thirty-nine days to go then).
Greatest rainfall in a year: 1,041 inches (Assam, India; August 1880-1881)
World's one minute rainfall record: July 4, 1956, 1.23 inches of rain fell in Unionville, MD.
http://www.angelfire.com/moon/weather_trivia/
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
Welcome to the Ship, HughWillRidmee.
I did some calculations on the volume of water previously, but I had not thought of the rainfall angle.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
No. 1 seems somewhat unlikely
.
.
.
One inch of rain in every 10.4 seconds.
Sounds pretty realistic to me!
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
No. 1 seems somewhat unlikely
.
.
.
One inch of rain in every 10.4 seconds.
Sounds pretty realistic to me!
Nice joke
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
...How bout my question. Does it change the meaning of the text or not?
It doesn't change the meaning of the words to us, but it does change theior effect on people since then if they believe God actually blesses the good and destroys the evil, rather than just deliver moral tales.
The idea that God blesses the good and destroys evil is a big problem in the bible.
The book of Job was included in the scriptures to show the idea is not so simple.
In the earlier stories of Genesis and continuing in some threads of the OT (Deuteronomic history e.g.) it is present but other traditions differ.
By the time you get to the New Testament, judgment is reserved for the last day or the next life for:
quote:
But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.
Or you get the tower of Siloam in Luke 12 where the theology is not so clear cut either:
quote:
Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam fell on them—do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish just as they did.’
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
To those that entertain the idea that the flood never actually happened but who believe the bible is true... what do you make of this:
"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." (2 Peter 3:5-7)
What is this "fire"?
Is this an idle warning?
Peter is talking about the day of Judgement. But he backs himself into a tight corner as he contradicts God in Genesis 8 when She says:
quote:
‘I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.
22As long as the earth endures,
seedtime and harvest, cold and heat,
summer and winter, day and night,
shall not cease.’
But perhaps Peter is not contradicting God in saying the living and the heavens and earth will perish, but rather is using the fire analogy like a refiners fire; purification.
Latchkey, I didn't get it. Please explain? I hate not getting jokes. Must be a blond thing. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
[ 14. May 2010, 04:17: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But perhaps Peter is not contradicting God in saying the living and the heavens and earth will perish, but rather is using the fire analogy like a refiners fire; purification.
It seems clear to me that this is right.
Not that literal fire did not happen on occasion in the Old Testament.
But those miraculous occasions seem more to me like illustrative examples than previews of what will happen to the world as a whole.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The idea that God blesses the good and destroys evil is a big problem in the bible.
The book of Job was included in the scriptures to show the idea is not so simple.
Job was motivated by fear.
"For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me." (3:25)
When he realised this was no good (as God knew he would) he was materially blessed twice as much as before, and learned some lessons.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
By the time you get to the New Testament, judgment is reserved for the last day or the next life for:
You still reap what you sow throughout life, and theer are judgements within the church such as ex-communication.
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I think Evensong was right. The Book of Job is a protest against the traditional view that prosperity is a sign of God's blessing and suffering evidence of sin.
The fact that Job ended up with double is neither here nor there since the prose beginning and ending of the book are simply taken from an Edomite folk tale and merely set the scene.
The real theology and purpose of the book is contained in the poetic section which constitutes 80% of the text. And the author is adamant. You cant blame all suffering on sin. Nor is it true that God punishes in such an unjust way.
[ 14. May 2010, 09:55: Message edited by: shamwari ]
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
You still reap what you sow throughout life,
This is absurd. I can show you thousands of examples of truly evil people (the Borgias come to mind) who die rich and happy, and millions of good people who die poor and suffering. This is why I hate the book of Proverbs so. Over and over it lies. The good do not all receive blessings. The evil do not all get their comeuppance. That's a lie invented by the rich to keep the poor in their place.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
Job was motivated by fear.
"For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me." (3:25)
When he realised this was no good (as God knew he would) he was materially blessed twice as much as before, and learned some lessons.
You need to read Job again.
Especially chapter 42. The LORD says that Job's three comforters (who said what you say above) spoke wrongly about him (i.e. spoke wrongly about the Lord).
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This is why I hate the book of Proverbs so. Over and over it lies. The good do not all receive blessings. The evil do not all get their comeuppance. That's a lie invented by the rich to keep the poor in their place.
Come on MT, that's because they are Proverbs. It even says that on the label. Proverbs are not laws, and that is why they are not called laws but are, in fact, called proverbs.
A proverb is generally true but it is never supposed to be universally true. How else do you account for Proverbs 26: 4-5?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
You still reap what you sow throughout life,
This is absurd. I can show you thousands of examples of truly evil people (the Borgias come to mind) who die rich and happy,
Happy? Who's definition? What criteria?
Such people know nothing of the love, joy and peace of God.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[QUOTE] and millions of good people who die poor and suffering.
Good? Who's definition? What criteria?
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
Ah! If you redefine words like "happy" and "good", the problem of evil goes away. I never thought of that.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Fortunately, NJA, your attempt to throw sand in my eyes was thwarted; I was wearing safety glasses.
You didn't say anything about defining things according to God. You said you get what you deserve in life. This life. Exploitative rich bastards who make life miserable for untold slave labourers, destroy delicate ecosystems, and so forth, while buying Renoirs and living antiseptic lives hardly deserve their riches and ease of living by just about any understanding of "deserve" (except that of the Republican party but don't get me started).
Contrariwise people living in grinding poverty who are kind to their neighbours, go out of their way to help others, and so forth, don't deserve to live in grinding poverty and watch their children die of starvation (or in the slave factories of the aforementioned fat cats), and all your bloviating about the true meaning of "good" or "happy" doesn't change that fact a whit.
But even if we accept your definitions, that "good" means "good little evangelical" and "happy" means "good little evangelical", it's still wrong. We don't deserve that. That's works righteousness.
PS: It's "whose" not "who's".
[ 14. May 2010, 14:20: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amarante
Apprentice
# 15573
|
Posted
The story of Job, like the story of Adam and Eve had origin in the polytheist Ancient Near East. The Sumerian/Mesopotamian deities were deemed unjust, jealous of their privilege, and not interested in human advance.
When the stories (histories) of Adam and Eve and Job were preserved in the Hebrew sacred book they had to be adapted to fit the mores of the revolution of monotheism, in which the single Deity, Yahweh, was deemed just. As a consequence those stories suffered a metamorphosis. Not surprisingly they can be hard to understand from the monotheist viewpoint.
They do make sense, however, when interpreted in an earlier light.
Posts: 19 | From: Poole - Dorset | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
As we have them in the Bible, Job and the Adam & Eve story make sense within a traditional monotheistic framework. Both have a single sovereign God. Both have some angelic creature, subservient to God, who puts temptation in the way of humanity - in the Garden, Eve fails the test whereas Job passes. There doesn't seem to be much room in the stories to multiply deities (unless the snake/Satan are taken as having originally been another god but significantly demoted in the Biblical versions - and there are no other similar characters in the stories). The best you can probably claim is an original story with a single ruling god and a court of subservient gods (like Zeus as king of the Greek pantheon), which morphed into a single God with an angelic court.
There may be other ancient stories with similarities (I'm no expert and don't know any - unlike the Gilgamesh epic with a flood, or the various creation stories). But, it's hard to see that there had to be such a story behind either Adam & Eve or Job given the total absense of any hint of additional deities in the Biblical versions.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
...You need to read Job again.
Especially chapter 42. The LORD says that Job's three comforters (who said what you say above) spoke wrongly about him (i.e. spoke wrongly about the Lord).
To speed things up, perhaps you can point to the verses where they said what I said?
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
...What difference does any option make to the meaning of the text?
Probably none. Hence, nails to masts become redundant.
If all the judgements & works of God reported in the text are just stories, they didn't really happen then why should anyone believe in a God who doesn't actually do what he talks about?
coz he's not talking in tongues? Is that the right answer? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
coz when the Bible says "The Lord says to ...." thats what the writer believed the Lord was saying
No guarantee that he was right in that belief.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amarante
Apprentice
# 15573
|
Posted
In the biblical story of Adam and Eve, and also of Job, there would naturally be no mention in monotheism of the polytheist deities. However, the pre-biblical epic of Gilgamesh has almost all the components of the Eden myth,the big difference being that those stories - deemed histories - had root in polytheism in which the gods were not seen to be just.
In monotheism the stories were preserved interpreted from a new standpoint. Whereas the original naked couple, and the original Babylonian Job, knew their gods to be immoral, in monotheism Yahweh was seen as just and reliable. This created a problem of interpretation for centuries to come.
Posts: 19 | From: Poole - Dorset | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
NJA
Shipmate
# 13022
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
.... Exploitative rich bastards who make life miserable...
Contrariwise people living in grinding poverty who are kind to their neighbours ...
I wouldn't judge by appearances if I were you.
A rich person who exploit sis unlikely to be a happy person
A poor person who shares has happiness.
In my experience of people in Africa we would call "poor" they were just as happy, and more spiritually blessed than the rich people who don't want God.
God says he will provide the needs of those who seek him, but the rich are like the flowers of the field - here today, gone tomorrow.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
PS: It's "whose" not "who's".
Yup, your are probably right.
I come from a generation of state-educated english people who were not taught English properly in the 70s. (Dunnow what it's like since).
I had another example today.
I was commenting on this video and said :
They spelt mutton wrongly
(or is it: they spelled mutton wrong?)
Posts: 1283 | From: near London | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
.... Exploitative rich bastards who make life miserable...
Contrariwise people living in grinding poverty who are kind to their neighbours ...
I wouldn't judge by appearances if I were you.
A rich person who exploit sis unlikely to be a happy person
On what do you base this? There are plenty of happy rich people. Also plenty of miserable rich people.
quote:
They spelt mutton wrongly
(or is it: they spelled mutton wrong?)
Wrong.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Jamat: evidence really doesn't depend on assumptions. It's the same whatever assumptions you make. You can cherry pick it, ignore it, twist it and so on, but it doesn't change. The evidence for an old earth, evolution and no global flood is so spectacularly strong and consistent that it takes assumptions, a particular theology and so on to dismiss it.
Horses originated in America, passed over the Bering Strait when it was a land bridge because of lower sea levels during a glacial period and established themselves in Asia. At the same time, humans crossed into America taking the same route in the other direction. Shortly after humans showed up, horses went extinct in America. This is almost certainly because they went from having few natural predators to being intensively hunted by humans with weapons. As the earth got warmer again, the sea levels rose, the land bridge disappeared and there was no way for horses to get back into America.
Fogive me, I smell assumption here
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
...You need to read Job again.
Especially chapter 42. The LORD says that Job's three comforters (who said what you say above) spoke wrongly about him (i.e. spoke wrongly about the Lord).
To speed things up, perhaps you can point to the verses where they said what I said?
The following is my personal view on Job. I am not claiming divine authority for it despite the assertions.
Job's lesson was simple but deep. Question God and you are wrong. You don't have all the facts he does.
Job's character was right. He hung on to his trust in God's investment and interest in him despite his circumstances and suffering.
In the end God vindicated Job because Job acknowledged him as God and because he chose to.
He did not vindicate Job's friends because they assumed exactly what you do NJA, that our actions lead to equal and opposite reactions from God.
Watch out!
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Fogive (sic) me, I smell assumption here [/QB]
The assumption that the evidence of our senses is more reliable than a biased religious text? Good catch.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amarante:
Whereas the original naked couple, and the original Babylonian Job, knew their gods to be immoral, in monotheism Yahweh was seen as just and reliable. This created a problem of interpretation for centuries to come.
What problem of interpretation? That the stories in the Bible borrow elements from pre-existing stories (with different cultural and theological assumptions) doesn't really alter the question of "what does the text, a it is, say?" An interesting academic exercise in trying to piece together the historical development of the stories as they pass from culture to culture, but not relevant to the question of what the final author wanted to say when he reused that literary material.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by NJA:
Job was motivated by fear.
"For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me." (3:25)
When he realised this was no good (as God knew he would) he was materially blessed twice as much as before, and learned some lessons.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
...You need to read Job again.
Especially chapter 42. The LORD says that Job's three comforters (who said what you say above) spoke wrongly about him (i.e. spoke wrongly about the Lord).
To speed things up, perhaps you can point to the verses where they said what I said?
I have already. Read chapter 42 again.
If you want me to join up the dots for you too, I'm happy to oblige:
quote:
After the LORD had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.
Job 42: 7
Now here is another example, to add to the one you've already given, of one of the occasions when Job speaks rightly of God:
quote:
'The fear of the Lord—that is wisdom, and to shun evil is understanding.'
Job 28: 28
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanc
Shipmate
# 6355
|
Posted
My take on the replies so far is this:
Choices 2 and 3 are acceptable, while choice 1 should be opposed like the plague.
Why is global flood so threatening to science while global warming, global ice age, global etc. are not? Is there not an iota of probability that a global flood had occurred? How about huge chunks of asteroids hitting the sea causing it to effect an unprecedented tsunami inundating all land mass? Should we rule this out?
Personally, I cannot imagine a gradual, local, yearly, non-catasthropic event producing huge oil and gas deposits, and a massive site of fossils. But do I vehemently oppose; like many of you do against the non-gradual, global, etc. No!
--------------------
I am, therefore I think.
Posts: 358 | From: Philippines | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sanc:
Why is global flood so threatening to science while global warming, global ice age, global etc. are not? Is there not an iota of probability that a global flood had occurred? How about huge chunks of asteroids hitting the sea causing it to effect an unprecedented tsunami inundating all land mass? Should we rule this out?
No, there is not one iota of probability that a global flood has occurred. Whereas, there is bucketloads of evidence that makes the probability of global warming happening very high, and that there have been large scale glaciations in the history of the earth so probable as to be effectively certain. An asteroid impact and tsunami could have occurred, but there would be considerable evidence for that - an impact crater, tsumani deposits all over the place (and, of the same age) etc. That's simply not there, at least for an event sufficiently recent to be the basis of a Flood narrative.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Fogive (sic) me, I smell assumption here
The assumption that the evidence of our senses is more reliable than a biased religious text? Good catch. [/QB]
I though it was the assumption that "evidence doesn't really depend upon assumptions."
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanc
Shipmate
# 6355
|
Posted
quote:
by Alan Cresswell:
No, there is not one iota of probability that a global flood has occurred.
I'm taking this certainty with a grain of salt. The earth is almost covered with water, and the earth's highlands are diminutive compared with the earths ocean trenches, it's not that hard to postulate that a little agitation of the water will cover the land mass.
Posts: 358 | From: Philippines | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sanc:
quote:
by Alan Cresswell:
No, there is not one iota of probability that a global flood has occurred.
I'm taking this certainty with a grain of salt. The earth is almost covered with water, and the earth's highlands are diminutive compared with the earths ocean trenches, it's not that hard to postulate that a little agitation of the water will cover the land mass.
But it's hard to take that postulate seriously.
It would have to be a massive agitation that would leave its own geological record. And there is no geological record of such agitation, as there is none of a global flood.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Global flood or not one thing is beyond question.
Noah was undoubtedly the best businessman ever.
The only person to float a company when the rest of the world was in a state of liqidation.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
